This article examines how a Christian apologist can stand basic morality on its head to fool himself and others. It deals with the Exodus 12 passage (sometimes called the Tenth Plague) and a Christian apologist’s response to a question about it (from http://christianthinktank.com/killheir.html). The passage reads as follows in the King James Version:

Lamentations over the death of the firstborn
of Egypt, by Charles Sprague Pearce

“For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD.”

“I got this question a while back and wanted to make an initial reply:

"Pharaoh was holding Moses and his people captive, and doing really nasty things to them. God tells Pharaoh to let his people go, but Pharaoh says no. To show Pharaoh that he means business, God retaliates by killing thousands of first born children (and adults that were firstborns too I guess). I'll stick to the children though. I'm assuming some firstborns were young. Anyway, many of those children had nothing to do with the slavery and atrocities committed by the Egyptian rulers. It's a lot like being punished for something someone else does.

My question would be then, why would I want to worship a vengeful God who slaughters innocent children?"

“As in many of the skeptical questions I get, the conclusion they end up with is often correct in some basic sense (i.e., 'we should not worship a vengeful God who slaughters innocent children'), but the reasoning which leads up to the conclusion doesn't indicate that the conclusion applies to the biblical God. In other words, their ethics are okay, but their exegesis (and sometimes hermeneutic or theology is mistaken).

“In this case, the questioner seems merely to have missed a few of the salient facts in the historical situation.”

Well, I was curious. The question seemed very straightforward to me, so what exactly are the “salient facts” the questioner missed?

Now, the apologist straightaway comes in through the back door, rather than approach the question head on. He begins by going through a number of mathematical steps to estimate how many Egyptian children would have been killed (69,000, he says).

Next, the apologist notes the biblical principal that “you reap what you sow,” then explains how the Egyptians, eighty years earlier, had carried out a long pogrom wherein all firstborn Hebrew boys born in Egypt were to be thrown into the Nile. Over the course of about 20 or so mathematical steps, he arrives at an estimate of roughly 2.75 million killed in the pogrom. Then, he proudly announces in bright red text that: “for every single innocent Egyptian child who died in the Tenth Plague, 40 innocent Hebrew infants had been killed by Pharaoh in the on-going infanticide program.”

Here, the apologist admits that his estimations are very rough, but concludes, “If there is inequity in this deal, it is clearly the Hebrews who bear its brunt—not the Egyptians.” Deal? What deal? And all this time I thought the question was whether it was moral for god to be intentionally killing innocent children.

The apologist then “clarifies” that we should not see these children’s deaths, Egyptian or Hebrew, as a “punishment” on them, but rather as a “consequence of someone else's evil deeds.” The apologist obviously wants to be very, very clear that the questioner, who had written, “It's a lot like being punished for something someone else does.” is simply wrong in his assumption. The children are definitely not being punished for what someone else did. (They should be considered “collateral damage,” perhaps?)

Now, the apologist explains that the Pharaoh was warned very, very clearly by god, through nine previous plagues, that he had better let the Israelites go.

Then there is this curious statement: “… we should note that one of the foundations of moral governance is that of Reciprocal Morality (i.e., the “Golden Rule”). This can be seen in many cultures and is the basis for the 'talion' laws in Lev 19.18 and Deut 15.13. This principle is ubiquitous in human law and human instruction… This would mean that if Pharaoh said it was okay to kill someone else's children, then he was implicitly agreeing (morally) that it was okay to kill his own peoples' children.”

Aha! Now it becomes clear. The apologist is appealing to the very well established Christian principle of scapegoating. We are not to blame god for killing the children; that’s the Pharaoh’s fault – he killed Hebrew children first. Similarly, we shouldn’t blame god for killing his own son, because we necessitated that through our own sinfulness. And, of course, we shouldn’t blame god for torturing people for eternity in hell, because it’s the sinful people’s fault for deserving it.

Next, the apologist adds that “…we should note that this 'I will enforce your own legal/moral code back upon yourself' motif (throughout the bible, btw—cf. Jer 17.18, for an example) applies also to extending the punishment to innocent members of the family. Egypt (like Babylon under Hammurabi) had laws in which members of families were punished for the acts of one member… It was okay under Egyptian law to do this, so God could 'use' their own law on them—without violating their law/ethics.”

Can you think of a single situation in which it would be moral to intentionally kill uninvolved children because you want to get back at someone else?So, the apologist concludes that God could kill Egyptian children “without violating their law/ethics.” Note, that he displaces the focus onto the Egyptian ethics so that god’s ethics are removed from consideration. But the question concerned god’s ethics, not the Egyptians’, you say? True, but the apologist doesn’t want you to notice that. Apparently, he thinks he can get around this by claiming that if this is the way things were done in those ancient times, then god was justified in doing things that way. This is the same way apologists often justify god’s (and Jesus’) turning a blind eye to slavery in the bible. Hey, that was just standard practice for the time. What gives us the right to expect god to be above the morality of the times? After all, he’s only god.

The apologist, in a couple places, says something like, “I am just thumbnailing this for a sanity check.” This is where he checks his figures on how many Israeli and Egyptian children may have died. I find it most interesting that he never does a “sanity check” on whether it could ever be moral to intentionally kill children because you (or god) want to get back at someone else. Doesn’t the answer to this most basic, humane, reason-based question render the rest of his arguments moot? The only way he can make any sense of god’s actions in this event, even to himself, is to come in through the back door, discussing ancient customs, measuring an eye for an eye, “do unto others,” etc., and avoiding the most obvious question staring him in the face – the one he was asked!

Let me isolate this for the few faithful who might be reading this essay. Can you think of a single situation in which it would be moral to intentionally kill uninvolved children because you want to get back at someone else? This is really what the initial question was all about. If you say, “Yes,” then please turn yourself in at the nearest asylum, because you are not morally fit to move about freely in our society. If you say, “No.” then how is it moral for a god to do this? Is god really above morality?

Be careful how you answer this. If you believe the bible, all of it, to be God’s revealed wisdom, and that whatever god does or says is moral, then shouldn’t you be out there obeying god’s commands to kill homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13), those who work on the Sabbath (Exodus 35:2), and adulterers (Leviticus 20:10)? You know in your heart that none of those actions would be moral. You know that those commands didn’t get written into the bible because a god “revealed” them to the bible’s authors. Likewise, the Exodus story of god’s killing of the Egyptian firstborn is not in the bible because a god “revealed” it.

Why is it so very hard for some to see that this bible, this relic of a primitive, superstitious age, is full of primitive superstition?

If we step outside this desperate attempt to “apologize” for god, don’t we have to ask why god didn’t just punish the Pharaoh directly, perhaps by giving him permanent, itchy scabies, or rendering him deaf, dumb & blind, or having him thrown into a cold, damp dungeon in a coup, or shriveling his penis to a quarter inch then increasing his sex drive tenfold? Are we to believe that a being of infinite intelligence couldn’t think of a way to punish the Pharaoh which didn’t involve killing children?

Intentionally killing thousands of innocent children because someone else (the Pharaoh) pissed him off, is to judge those children’s lives as unimportant in themselves. As this devalues human life in an extreme way, it is, by definition, inhumane.

And the apologist who defends God’s actions in this has allowed his religion to warp his own moral sense. He is essentially claiming that if god did it, then god must have been justified. If god did it, then it must be moral. This is an extremely dangerous attitude. This is exactly the attitude that enabled the atrocities of the European inquisitors which cost the freedom and the lives of thousands, perhaps millions. The bible says, “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” Thus, the inquisitors decided there must be witches among them, and they must be sought out and killed. Jesus said, “If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.” Thus, the inquisitors judged, they must gather the heretics who didn’t abide in Jesus, and burn them. Whenever those in power believe that everything the bible says is true, madness reigns, and we are all in great danger.

I contend that a rational consideration of this Tenth Plague passage leads to the conclusion that god’s actions in this case (real - or imagined by the author) are immoral. To contend that god had no other fair and reasonable way to punish the Pharaoh except by intentionally killing thousands of uninvolved children is simply false (not to mention stupid).

Ironically, the Christianthinktank site banner proclaims, A Christian Thinktank, “Critically examine everything. Hold on to the good.” (Paul, First Thessalonians 5.21)

The apologist who wrote this nonsense on Christianthinktank has allowed his religious bias (“god is always just”) to corrupt his moral sense, and make him blind, insensitive, and stupid. Beware any doctrine that seeks to make you stupid!

Thursday afternoon, Brian Richard Gray, 32, was extradited to Georgia from Alabama, where he was arrested Tuesday at a family member's home, Oconee Sheriff Scott Berry said.

Gray, of Winder, faces charges of rape and and child molestation stemming from a relationship with a teenager he knew through the Monroe Church of Christ. Gray allegedly visited the teen several times in her family's Oconee County home while her parents were away, Berry said.

Deputies believe there may be other victims, and that Gray could face additional charges, Berry said. The church has cooperated with the investigation, he said.

Gray was being held Thursday night without bond, a jail spokeswoman told the AJC.

Curtis Burkhardt, 43, of Grand Blanc, was taken into custody on Nov. 22 after police investigated claims that he had exposed himself to a child at an area campground.

Detective Dale Brown, with the Brandon Township Police department, said he received a fax from the Grand Blanc Police Department which indicated that in August, Burkhardt took a group of neighborhood children to the Clearwater Campground in Brandon Township without prior approval from their parents.

ANDERSON­ — A court ruling in which an Anderson father’s religion was a determining factor to strip him of joint custody of his three children is cause for concern, an Indiana University law professor said.

Craig Scarberry plays with his three children

Craig Scarberry of Anderson lost joint custody of his three children this month after Madison County Superior Court 3 Commissioner George C. Pancol issued an order that included court evidence that Scarberry, formerly a Christian, had become agnostic. The order was affirmed by Superior Court 3 Judge Thomas Newman.

Jennifer Drobac, an IndianaUniversity professor specializing in family law, said a parent’s religion has no place in custody decisions.

“Father has a reason to be concerned,” Drobac wrote in an e-mail, suggesting the ruling might violate Scarberry’s First Amendment constitutional right to freedom of religion.

“I have read the order and am really concerned about why (Pancol) twice mentioned (Scarberry’s) religious beliefs,” Drobac wrote. “Such discretion would be clearly unconstitutional unless the parent’s religious practices were actually harming or posed a substantial threat of harm to the children.”

The ruling reduced Scarberry’s custody of his elementary-school-age children to alternating weekends plus four hours a week. Scarberry has until Dec. 1 to appeal the ruling.

Scarberry has obtained a permit for a fathers’ rights rally at the Madison County Courthouse on Dec. 16.

Pancol, who previously declined to discuss the case, said again Tuesday that it would be unethical for him to comment.

“This country was established, in part, because of a desire for religious freedom. The First Amendment protects all religious perspectives, not just Christian ones,” Drobac wrote.

The concept of Hell is what got me started on my journey out of Christendom. I could not bear the thought that God would be punishing people I knew, or even people I didn’t know, in eternal hell. It was tearing me up so I started doing some research. Ironically, it is this same concept of Hell that keeps many people from questioning their religious beliefs. Seeing the many comments and concerns voiced by visitors and contributors to exC, I thought it would be a good idea to revisit this topic myself.

Whenever I write a reply that refers people to one of my favorite website I use the disclaimer that it is a Christian website. And why wouldn’t it be? Only Christians would care about the concept of eternal hell and only Christians are worried about having a god that is roasting untold millions of people. Much of the world does not believe in Christianity and would have their own concerns.

Vast numbers of people live in fear of this place of imagined unending torments in which Satan rules an underworld filled with unbelievers in Christ. Eternal punishment. Forever and ever and ever. Yet all of this is nonsense. These are not interpretation of the Greek words of the Bible into English but rather theological overlays. Don't take my word for it. Let's look at what a few scholars have to say. This is by no means an exhaustive listing of the information available. So is “eternal hell” even in the Bible?

What of the word eternal?

Hebrew “olam” and Greek “aionios”. These are the two words that were erroneously translated into everlasting and eternal. These words do not have those meanings. They refer to “age” or “eon“. Those might be long periods of time but they are not eternity.

"All the way through it is never feasible to understand 'aionios' (Greek word translated eternal, everlasting, and for ever in many English Bible translations.) as everlasting." Dr. Nigel Turner

"'Olam (the Hebrew for aion) simply signifies for a long time. The Hebrew Scriptures do not contain any doctrine of everlasting punishment." Rabbi Loewe

What about hell?

Concordant Publishing Concern is a well-known publisher of Bible literature, including the Concordant Literal New Testament, Concordant Version of the Old Testament, Concordant Greek Text, and Concordant Commentary. They make the point strongly that the English word "hell" should no longer be used in Bible texts because of the "corrupting influence of human tradition" that has given it the image of a place of torment where judged souls are condemned to spend eternity, an image that is simply untrue:

THE OLD ENGLISH “hell,” denoted that which is covered (hidden or unseen). Consequently, it once served as a suitable translation of the Greek Hades, which means “imperceptible” or unseen.” In modern English, however, due to the corrupting influence of human tradition, “hell” has come to mean “the abode of the dead; the place of punishment after death [in which the dead are alive].” Consequently, since in modern English the notion represented by the term “hell” constitutes, to say the least, interpretation, not translation, it is unconscionable for modern translators to render either the Hebrew sheol or the Greek Hades by this expression.

Yet it is worse still, whether in old English or modern English, to render the Greek tartarosas and especially the Greek geenna, also as “hell.” Such “translations” are not translations at all; they are but the product of circular reasoning and hoary tradition. Whatever one’s understanding may be concerning the matters to which these words make reference, as a translation of the Original, the rendering “hell,” in all cases, is wholly unjustifiable. . (James Coram, "The Gahanna of Fire," Concordant Publishing Concern, 2006)

The word hell does not appear in numerous editions of the Bible. For instance, the Young’s Literal Translation and the NAB [the New American Bible]. The other Bibles that have retained the use of the word hell have cut back on the number of times it is used. That would include the King James Version. Kind of like when an alcoholic “cuts back” on his drink of choice. He isn’t quite ready to give up drinking yet.

What of fire and brimstone?

Okay, so there is no eternal associated with divine punishment in the Bible nor is there the word hell. But doesn’t the lake of fire in Revelations prove that there is a hell?

Charles Pridgeon and I [ J. Preston Elby] would like to quote from his scholarly work on the subject of BRIMSTONE. He says: "The Lake of Fire and Brimstone signifies a fire burning with brimstone; the word 'brimstone' or sulfur defines the character of the fire. The Greek word THEION translated 'brimstone' is exactly the same word THEION which means 'divine.' Sulfur was sacred to the deity among the ancient Greeks; and was used to fumigate, to purify, and to cleanse and consecrate to the deity; for this purpose they burned it in their incense. In Homer's Iliad (16:228), one is spoken of as purifying a goblet with fire and brimstone. The verb derived from THEION is THEIOO, which means to hallow, to make divine, or to dedicate to a god (See Liddell and Scott Greek-English Lexicon, 1897 Edition). To any Greek, or any trained in the Greek language, a 'lake of fire and brimstone' would mean a 'lake of divine purification.' J. Preston Eby http://www.tentmaker.org/books/TheLakeOfFire-Eby.html

So add it up. The Bible actually says that God will judge in a given period of time for the purification and divine consecration of people. Wow! Where did the eternal torture chamber go? For surely it does not exist in this statement.

I could go on with this line of thinking but truly the concept of an eternal hell in which people are endlessly tortured is not originally a concept that the Jews nor early Christians [who were Jews, hello] "believed in".

Over time, the multicultural influences of other religions were incorporated into the Bible and Christian belief. But it is the medieval Christians, perhaps 1,000 years after Christ is said to have lived and died that perfected the belief in hell. And ever since then the depictions of hell have grown ever more graphic.

The concept of an eternal hell in which people are endlessly tortured is not originally a concept that the Jews nor early Christians [who were Jews, hello] "believed in". So how did we get to the hell being preached today? One reason is the drama of theater. Church was often just about the only entertainment available. Surely there is the control aspect. If your priest or preacher tells you about hell and then saves you from it [all the while humbly proclaiming to only be doing god's work] then you owe him, don't you? There is the very human need to embellish. Some people like that god chose to save them from eternal hell and that makes them extra special Perhaps the saddest reasons is that those who are brainwashed into this mindset then go on to brainwash others, never giving any thought to whether or not hell might be a false concept.

I think there is one more reason hell has been elevated to above and beyond the pale of decency. The clergy can no longer force you to come to church by placing you in stocks or torturing you to turn to their version of Jesus. So, they have perfected mental anguish and torment.

Use your own discernment and not the judgment of others when it comes to deciding whether or not there is an eternal hell. I certainly do not believe that this concept is contained in the Bible. Judgment and punishment, yes. But being damned to hell eternally. It just isn't there. So let it go.

I got over my belief in hell before I left the Christian faith but I did not get over my fear of hell until I did leave the Christian faith. I had to keep using my reasoning to over ride my fears. It took a bit of time but I no longer have panic attacks or nightmares. There is no eternal hell and I will not be punished forever and ever. As one of our finest has said “ And if you are worried about the consequences of a mistake, of hell for instance, just remember that fine old quotation which we all prove day after day after day, “To err is human. . .” (Alexander Pope – poet). If there is a god, then he is surely aware of this, and cannot reasonably fault you for being . . . human. Wizened Sage [aka Galen Rose]

For those who would give up their faith if it were not for eternal hell there should be nothing holding you back now. Do not let other people think for you. Do your own thinking, whatever your religion or lack of religious beliefs. Maybe next time we can explore the morality of an eternal hell. Or delve deeper into the mistranslations of the Bible and why they are not corrected by truth loving Christians. Or why the use of eternal hell elevates Christianity to the level of destructive cult. Or why hell concept is bad for children.

My son,who is 41 years old, has suffered a brain aneurysm. We were able to get help for him quickly and it looks like he will be OK. I am getting frustrated and angry at all of the relatives on both sides of the family who call to tell us we are in their prayers, and knowing that I am an atheist, give a little sermon about why I should believe as if my son's aneurysm is a "teaching moment."

Here's the thing. These Christians seem to believe that they are doing something great for us. How much effort is a prayer? It would seem that it replaces any other action like a hug, a visit, a card, or an offer to bring sandwiches and fruit to the ICU for the family.

Here is the other thing: By their faulty reasoning, a god who can answer their prayer to heal my son, also caused this to happen. Yet they don't seem to think of these things in the same sentence. They seem to be unreasonable and self-righteous hypocrites who are incapable of critical thinking and logic.

I am tired, scared, and hoping that my son will be OK with this genetic snafu, and they think their little prayer will fix it. I guess they feel better. I always did believe that being in touch with god was sort of a selfish self-worship.

My reading on this site over the past few years suggests that many believers and fence-sitters stay that way because they dare not take that last step.

Through their own research and independent thinking they have come to the conclusion that Christianity is seriously flawed with unproven assertions, contradictions, and moral lapses. They realize that a “god of love” is inconsistent with a god who drowns every human being on the planet except for one drunk and his family. They realize that not all prayers are answered, despite what Jesus said. They understand that to execute a person because he is homosexual or works on Sunday is immoral, despite what the bible says. They know that the bible reads like a book of myths, with its dragons, talking snakes and jackasses, a woman turned into a pillar of salt, and page after page of other fantastic creatures and stories. They know that Christianity relies on miracles like virgin births, faith healing, and walking on water, and depends on the resurrection, while also knowing that neither they nor anyone they know has ever witnessed anything that could actually be proven as a miracle.

Of course, one of the major sticking points for the curious is the fear of hell. What if there really is a hell? In the previous paragraph, there is a whole array of plausible reasons for doubting the claimed divine authorship of the bible. Would a god really write, or cause to have written, such a bunch of nonsense? That seems extremely doubtful, but can anyone actually prove it? The answer, of course, is no. Therefor, no one can prove definitively that there is no hell.

For the curious, then, the matter often comes down to a question of what standard of proof should be used in their investigations of Christianity and its foundational beliefs. Shouldn’t one be 100% certain before turning his back on his faith? That is an unrealistic and unachievable expectation. The 100% certainty standard is not only unreasonable, it is also counter-productive, as it paralyzes the doubter, leaving him unable to make a decision.

The standard Christian argument generally goes something like this: "If you can't disprove it with 100% certainty, then it's still reasonable for me to believe it." If we think about this for just a moment, it quickly becomes obvious that this is a false statement. Is it reasonable for one to believe our universe is merely a computer simulation in a junior high school lab in another universe . . . simply because it can’t be disproved? Is it reasonable for one to believe there is a race of microscopic, intelligent beings living among the dust motes under your bed? After all, one can’t prove they’re not there, because there is always that one in a quadrillion-squared chance that whenever you move your microscope thataway a few inches, those beings move thisaway a few inches, so you can never see them.

The standard Christian argument generally goes something like this: "If you can't disprove it with 100% certainty, then it's still reasonable for me to believe it." If we think about this for just a moment, it quickly becomes obvious that this is a false statement.Clearly, the 100% certainty standard is not just absurd, it is counterproductive, since, by that standard, everything is possible and nothing is impossible (except by definition). But, obviously, if science used such a standard, we would still be living in caves. Wouldn’t that be counter-productive?

In the end, neither our brains nor the world are configured for absolute certainty. In no area of life, outside of religion, would we insist on absolute certainty. What we should want, and insist on, is reasonable plausibility. Should a jury never return a guilty verdict in a murder trial because it can never be 100% certain? Wouldn’t this approach leave a hell of a lot of murderers on the loose? Isn’t it counter-productive then? Isn’t the standard of “beyond a REASONABLE doubt” sufficient, and, anyway, the best we can do? Most of us, at some point, become committed to a life partner in marriage or committed cohabitation, but can we ever be 100% certain that this is THE “best” or “right” person for us? Of course we can’t. We learn as much as we can about that person, her/his habits, beliefs, and values, and we commit our lives to that decision. If we insisted on 100% certainty, we would all be single, all the time. Isn’t that counter-productive to our own search for happiness? Much like religion, if we later find we were wrong, then we change course. That’s the best we can do.

In sum, our standard of proof in religious matters, as in all other matters, should be reasonable probability, never certainty, because absolute, 100% certainty is not achievable, and is in fact counter-productive. And if you are worried about the consequences of a mistake, of hell for instance, just remember that fine old quotation which we all prove day after day after day, “To err is human. . .” (Alexander Pope – poet). If there is a god, then he is surely aware of this, and cannot reasonably fault you for being . . . human.

Faith based social services; Christian language from the presidential bully pulpit; Executive support for Arizona vouchers that divert tax dollars to religious schools … by the stack of evidence mounting up this fall, President Obama’s commitment to Christianity holds greater pull than his years of constitutional scholarship.

In his inauguration speech, Obama acknowledged explicitly that this country includes nonbelievers along with Christians and religious minorities. This might seem obvious, but compare it with Bush’s unapologetic bigotry: “I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots.” Given the contrast, nontheists of all stripes (humanists, rationalists, freethinkers, atheists, agnostics, skeptics, pantheists, etc.) were thrilled--pathetically so in hindsight. They would have done well to heed the broader pattern in Obama’s remarks rather than jumping on an isolated word.

According to Marvin Krantz, an American history expert, even in that inaugural speech "You could hear beneath it all references to God-given promise, God's calls on us, God's grace on us, and the frequent use of 'shall' in that King James-ian English of the Bible and early translations of Jewish prayer books." But perhaps the most telling sign of things to come, the selection of anti-gay Evangelical mega-minister Rick Warren for the invocation. Warren, predictably, used the inaugural invocation to sermonize—to tell the world that there is one way to God—his way.

That is not to accuse Obama of being Evangelical per se. But look, he told us repeatedly in his books and public appearances that his Christian beliefs are at the heart of who he is. Optimistic nontheists ignored him. Unfortunately, actions speak louder than words, and as nontheists have waited eagerly for Jefferson’s church-state wall to be reestablished, they have been repeatedly disappointed.

Early in his presidency, Obama made the decision to continue Bush’s program of faith-based social services, many of which include proselytizing on the public dime. (For Evangelicals the point of social services is winning converts.) Americans United for Separation of Church and State this week issued yet another statement on the topic: “Yesterday, the White House issued an executive order that added stronger beneficiary protections and more transparency about funding recipients. But a George W. Bush rule allowing publicly funded “faith-based” charities to discriminate on religious grounds in hiring remains in place.. . . “Each day that no action is taken,” [Executive Director, Rev. Barry] Lynn said, “applicants for federally funded jobs are subject to blatant religious discrimination and the religious liberty rights of social service beneficiaries are compromised.”

In March, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that a state voucher system for subsidizing private schools was unconstitutional. The vouchers allow any individual to divert state tax revenues away from public services and into private schools, many of which combine the three ‘r’s with Christian indoctrination of one sort or another. (My extended family used the voucher system to fund Calvinist instruction.) Per the court documents, the state constitution is explicit:

“[n]o public money . . . shall be appropriated to any religious worship, exercise, or instruction, or to the support of any religious establishment.”

“[n]o tax shall be laid or appropriation of public money made in aid of any church, or private or sectarian school, or any public service corporation.”

Obama told us repeatedly in his books and public appearances that his Christian beliefs are at the heart of who he is. Optimistic nontheists ignored him.The case was appealed. November 3, the Obama administration came down on the side of the religious instruction, sending Neal Katyal, Obama's solicitor general, to testify before the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the vouchers.

I am a progressive nontheist, a woman who believes that we must take care of each other because there’s no one else out there to do it, who believes that if we want heaven we need to create it together here on Earth, who believes that narrow, shortsighted self-interest must be hard fought in our social structures as well as in each heart; who believes that religious tribalism makes each of these challenges harder. I am a woman who voted for Obama because of these beliefs.

Ironically, my deepest disappointments in our president have been because he is exactly who he said he was on the campaign trail: a deeply committed Christian and a bridge builder, not a guardian of rationality and a fighter. Having experienced Christianity as a powerful force for good in his own life (and by association religion more broadly), he is reluctant to erect protective barricades against its darker manifestations. He is intent on building bridges even when the only people waiting on the other side (political or religious fanatics) are intent on blowing them up. I had counted on him to hold some lines that those of us in the trenches will have to hold ourselves.

Reality and truth are unkind to those hopelessly stuck in delusion. That is what I found out a long time ago. A large potent dose of truth that socked me in the gut so hard I cried as I watched my delusions crumble away until all that remained was the way things are.

The stark, alarming, blinding truth of existence. The feeling deep in my heart/mind/stomach...at the very center of who/what I am, that the universe in which we live exists independently of any 'intelligent' creator or author. The feeling that the universe is beyond any capability for me to ponder, without beginning or end, and yet uncaused and without error. I'll begin with this little rant about the universe and what I see it as. I think it is of at least some importance as it was this line of thinking that started my straying from religious thinking.

This feeling of "universal awareness" (since I have to call it something) wasn't some beautiful enlightening sense of oneness or any such thing as you might read about in new-age books. It was a sense in which I ceased believing in myths and superstition, and I wasn't really even that interested in science for that matter until later on. All I was interested in was reality, the real, the universe as a solitary entity and how it works. It is a crushing silence that destroys beliefs and replaces those beliefs with nothing comforting.

(The first time I felt this was as a kid. I used to try to imagine what it would be like if there was nothing in existence. I would get to where I only imagined a black space void of any objects, but once I became aware that even blackness was 'something' and I tried to get rid of that, I would get scared and quit thinking about it immediately.)

The sense that I had was that this universe unfolds as it has to, constantly and it does so perfectly without mistakes. What we call mistakes, or tragedy, or wrong is only our flawed and limited view of the way things are. In everything we see as being wrong or terrible, the universe is simply working/unfolding doing what it does, while weaving a much greater perfection that has nothing to do with our convenience and cares not one bit for our approval. Volcanoes erupt and destroy lives, homes and entire ecosystems. New life is created from the ashes of that 'tragedy'. Stars go supernova and destroy everything for millions of miles, and then a beautiful array of gases remain in the space for creatures on earth to observe with high powered telescopes and ponder the universe. Beautiful, and yet still, just an ordinary event occurring for no reason.

Okay, all that talk aside I joined ExChristian.net as it seemed an appropriate place for me to be a part of. While I don't refer to myself as an Exchristian or really any title, it is accurate to say that deconversion from Christianity is part of my story. I think all people in life are seeking to align themselves with the truth of their situation, or coming to know what the capital T "Truth" is.

I think everything else I can say was fairly well summed up in a memssage to a fellow exChristian seeking to know the "truth" recently. Besides, there isn't much to say about my life or my story because anyways. It's all pretty mundane stuff compared to other great stories I've read here on the site. Plus I'm sure our search for what is real and true is our common ground.

Dear _________,

I know it may be hard to view it (what she called deconversion) this way, but your message was beautiful to me. It reflects what I experienced even for many years denying my own experience and telling myself that my faith was being tested. What was actually happening to me, and it sounds like what is happening to you, is that you are TRULY a seeker of truth. Going to places where people tell you what you want to believe, and they flatter you for believing and for playing along in the game of collectively enforcing one another's delusions is NOT THE TRUTH.

The truth cannot be known outright by anyone who is in delusion, or who is surrounded by an atmosphere steeped in myth, superstition and wrong-thinking. So, when in this atmosphere, since you can't know the truth (which I refer to truth in this manner as that notion that there is absolute correct perception). Many current Christians especially the Christians who are on shakey ground with their faith are so uncomfortable and shakey BECASE they can sense on some level that they are not part of this correct perception. If they are VERY intuitive, they may sense that the reason they aren't preceiving things clearly is because they have a filter through which they view the world. This filter was installed through indoctrination. Just suddenly deciding that you don't believe in Christianity anymore doesn't automatically remove this filter. Every aspect of ones thoughts and beliefs are intricately attached to it. One who has deconverted from Christianity may not necesarily be free from this filter, even though the filter is seen as the creation of a now defunct Christian worldview.

So what can a person do to get rid of the filter and start perceiving things without those intrusive judgements, thoughts and modes of operating? The only thing you can really do is back away from untruth and shun everything that smacks of lies, delusion, and prevarication. And that is what you are doing. Your swatting away a bunch of half-baked crazy talk about a God that people accept from second hand sources, and the ones who claim to know God from first hand experience are usually too crazy or too far gone to ever see anything outside of the hazy lense from which they filter reality.

At this stage in your search for truth (I won't call it deconversion necessarily although deconversion may certainly be an aspect of this search) I would say the best thing you can do is to try to become conscious, become very aware of all unchallenged beliefs as they arise. These are the little voices that come about when any situation prompts them. I often find the judgemental voice of my mother, or an old pastor come up still from time to time if there is a situation in which I know they would just go into a morality rant. When those used to come up, I mistakenly assumed that whatever those beliefs that came up were MY BELIEFS. But they are not, and never have been. They are just things I've picked up along the way from others who I saw as authority figures.

When your family asks you why you are so sensitive about the issues of God and Christianity if you no longer believe in them, they are basically saying that they don't really think you are a non-believer. Maybe that is their way of holding out hope that you will fall back into the fold. I can understand your own concern about this, but you need to recognize that you are very sensitive about issues relating to God/religion BECAUSE you are on the right track. It may seem that by being so sensitive to the subject that you are still interested in God, and you are still interested in holding onto Christianity, but really you are interested in the truth. Your sensitivity is there because you are deconstructing an old way of seeing the world and you are on guard against falling back into old patterns of seeing it. It is an intuitive sense that the old way brought a lot of needless suffering, but you resist it because part of you knows that people stick with it because they cannot conceive of the dishonor that would come with being seen as a nonbeliever. They aren't interested in truth, they are interested in saving face and saving their oily hides from what might happen if Christianity DOES turn out to be true (fear of Hell).

The only thing that will EVER keep you from realizing who you REALLY TRULY are and what you truly think, is unchallenged beliefs. All my best to you.

One argument I have often heard Christians make against atheism is that without god there can be no moral absolutes.

This type of statement presupposes a number of assumptions: one, that the bible is the word of god (obviously debatable); two, that the morals of the followers of god are ‘correct’ and ‘good’ (highly debatable); and three, that people without god conceive and do evil at a greater rate than people that have some kind of belief in god. I am sure there are others as well.

I find myself getting quite angry with the proposition that without god one will have no morals. It is often noted on this site how evil the god of the bible is, the complete disregard shown in the bible for life, for women and for the state of humanity. Less often do we discuss how people can be and are in general ‘good’ (as opposed to evil) without the god of the bible making them so.

So without god, what is to stop people from being immoral?

From the point of view of one atheist, one that has no belief in any god of any sort whatsoever, the question about where morals come from is quite easy to answer. If god did not write the bible, then some person or persons unknown for the most part wrote the bible. The good, the bad and the ugly parts of it. The questionable (at best) morals as laid out in the bible sprung from the minds of men (and I expect very little of it sprung from the minds of women, but that is another subject).

It follows than that through the recent history of humankind, the question of how to behaviour in society has been thought about, worked out, refined, reworked and then refined again and again. We still have not got it right.

I find much of the bible, and other religious teaching downright obnoxious, and will not based my life or my morals on them. I prefer to have my morals come from intelligent enquiry and sensible debate to coming from dogma and the writings of people that lived in an very unscientific and narrow minded world.

As a child I liked Thanksgiving hymns even better than Christmas carols – perhaps because I’ve always been a bit of a contrarian. My daughter, Brynn, is the same way. Case in point: She probably would have disliked the Twilightbooks even if her friends hadn’t crooned over them. But the abject loathing she expressed whenever they were mentioned, coupled with facial contortions and intermittent retching noises, were, by her own admission “because everybody else likes them so much.” Another case in point: The animals that elicit her protective instinct aren’t those with soft fur and big eyes but those with cold skin and big teeth. You catch the family pattern.

Some things change, and some things, like a tendency to swim upstream, don't. My understanding of our Thanksgiving holiday is one of the former; my stubborn refusal to abandon my traditions despite their religious history, is one of the latter.

It’s been a long time now since those cherished Thanksgiving hymns expressed my feelings about the warmth and bounty that carry me through the winter.

Well, ok, that one still makes me feel nostalgic and snug—at least until I come to the line “God our maker doth provide, for our needs to be supplied,” at which point I start thinking about a mom I met in Guatemala and a club-footed child beggar in Delhi--and my old belief that God had provided me rather than them with a stuffed turkey is somewhat embarrassing.

And the other hymn that went with that one every November – What did it even have to do with bounty?

“We gather together to ask the Lord’s blessing. He hastens and chastens his will to make known. The wicked oppressing now cease from distressing. Sing praises to his name, he forgets not his own.”

It reminds me a little too much of the first Thanksgiving proclamation – the one that gave thanks to God for his assistance in helping the European pilgrims to slaughter natives:

“The Holy God having by a long and Continual Series of his Afflictive dispensations in and by the present Warr with the Heathen Natives of this land, . . . It certainly bespeaks our positive Thankfulness, when our Enemies are in any measure disappointed or destroyed . . . that the Lord may behold us as a People offering Praise and thereby glorifying Him.”

When I first learned that the earliest Thanksgiving proclamations celebrated God’s generous assistance not with the natives but against them, I felt betrayed--not surprised, mind you; the fairy-tale version of American history had already fallen apart for me--but betrayed none the less. Disgusted. It tainted the holiday.

But now I see things differently. It is ok for a celebration of brutality to evolve into a celebration of bounty. It is ok for a celebration of division – of us-vs.-them – to evolve into a celebration of unity. In fact, it is more than ok. We can grow as a society only if our rituals and traditions are allowed to grow with us, because ritual and tradition are too deeply rooted simply to be abandoned. If they don’t evolve, they become anchors tethering us to the values of the past. That doesn’t mean we should deny our history, including what Thanksgiving once meant. Recognizing what darkness we are capable of empowers us to rise above it. Where we are today is even more worth celebrating when we honestly acknowledge where we have come from.

When I first learned that the earliest Thanksgiving proclamations celebrated God’s generous assistance not with the natives but against them, I felt betrayed.Part of my own history was a self-centered belief in an interventionist God who provides turkeys for American kids while others starve. Thanksgiving was a religious holiday for me just as it was for generations of American Christians, both the ones who praised God for brutality and the ones who praised God for bounty. Some would say that God is at the heart of Thanksgiving, irrevocably, and those of us who are nonbelievers need to accept that and decide whether we are in or out. But God is no more at the heart of Thanksgiving than brutality is – meaning both were, and both can be, but neither must be.

This is where my contrarian nature kicks in. I decline (politely but stubbornly) to accept God as a part of Thanksgiving, to bow during prayers or mumble through those once resonant hymns. I decline (politely but firmly) to accept the myths of my childhood: the myth of a promised land and a group of chosen people who did harm only in the service of self defense, the myth of a interventionist deity who feeds some of his children. But just as firmly I refuse to abandon the practice of thanks-giving and the holiday of Thanksgiving. For me, ever and always, November will be a time of celebrating the love and beauty and bounty that life has bestowed. This year, and for years to come, it will be a time of cooking and eating and participating in a community of shared, humble gratitude. It will be a time of evoking the deep wonder that we, small peculiar manifestations of the universe made conscious, have been so blessed.

Last Monday, for 24 hours after seeing the doctor, my older son and I thought hard about this subject. The next morning, I decided to write about the subject, because a part of me did not want to do it, but the other part was doing its best to comfort and tell myself, it was the right decision and best for Amber. Since this topic is one of much discussion, besides one my family had to face, I decided to share my thoughts. I had to stop trying to second-guess the decision too, in the hopes of saving her life, but writing did not stop the tears or the pain.

There was a time I said I would never do that to a pet or anyone else for that matter, because I thought it was murder, at least when I was in the Church. The thought of killing someone to save them from suffering and pain was an abhorrence to me and I truly believed that we should do everything to save their life, even if it fails. Why? I do not know. However, since I left the Church that has changed and I have set different standards for even my own death when the time comes. I write about Amber, as though she were human, because she was family, but if such were the wishes of a dying human, I would respect and honour those wishes. I also feel, portraying her as human-like, with an occasional reminder that she was not, shows a point concerning end of life issues.

For over two months, I watched my precious furry four-legged daughter, Amber get thinner, sicker, and weaker by the day, refusing to eat or drink. The doctor, as an advocate for Amber, finally recommended euthanasia, because as she told me, I could have all the money in the world and it more than likely would not help her get better. Any treatment at that point would only prolong her life, but in suffering and pain. The doctor was not recommending it because we have three cats and are on hard times nor was it some sick bizarre desire to rid the world of too many non-human animals. Amber was truly sick with an extremely enlarged liver and kidney, as well as severely jaundice. She went from a very healthy thirteen pounds to a barely six pounds in a couple months and felt like an anorexic on death's door. Nothing we tried over the last couple of months helped her and the thirteen-year-old girl only got worse.

This precious little girl, who I still think of as being like a daughter and spent her whole life, minus the first four months, with me, would cuddle up under the covers at night beside me and purr me to sleep. She was my ears when someone approached the door and told me there was another human on the other side, before they knocked. She also became a mother to Shiva when she joined our family at six weeks old over five years ago, although Amber never had kittens herself. She loved everyone, even the cop with shiny things dangling from his pants, in which she tried to grab. Luckily, the officer had pets and understood, without wanting to harm her for trying to grab his handcuffs.

So why would I want her life and death to be any different from my own? Why would I want her life prolonged with a very slim chance of recovery, only to die with tremendous pain and suffering, when I would not want that myself? She was family and as family, she was entitled to the same rights and privileges, as any of us, applicably applied of course since she was a cat. She lived a good life, probably better than most other cats living with humans; because we never treated her any differently than we would a human animal, with some exceptions of course. For example, she could not sit at the dinner table like a human, thus it had to be reasonable and accommodating to her. Why should her end of life issues be any different from what we would desire? Why should we prolong her life when the doctor had little hope, especially when we would not want it for ourselves? Why would I want my family to spend money they could not afford to keep me alive a little longer when in the end, I would just die a painful death anyway, probably more pain than if I were allowed to die sooner? I would not want it and I would hope they would have a memorial that celebrated my life as they return me to the earth.

Anyway, the doctor explained to me, that they would cremate her, give us her ashes, and "Friends of the Family" would set up a time to help us scatter her ashes in a field. I could not help but think, even with tears, “that is exactly how I would want it” and I could picture the beautiful field in my head as we gave her a funeral celebration. For me, it sounded as beautiful as anything I would want my family to have when they celebrate my life after I die.

That night, I visited her at the hospital, albeit with tears, before the doctor euthanized her. Although it was hard, both my older son and I were with her at 5:30 that evening when she breathed her last. I said I would never do it, but Monday evening, both my older son and I thought, together and separately, about what we would want if we were in Amber's place. The thought of dying in pain from organ failure seemed to me as bad as dying from painful cancer. I would not want it and would prefer to just go to sleep and sleep the sleep of the dead before the pain became too much. I have always wanted to die in my sleep, just as my grandmother, her sister, and my great grandmother did without euthanasia. It cannot always be done naturally, but still possible, before the pain of dying gets to be unbearable. I wished the same for my darling Amber, even though it hurt greatly to let her go.

Therefore, we made the decision that I said, before leaving the Church, that I would never do. Thoughts on death do change though. Instead of going to a fictional place, she, just as us humans, will be returning to the earth and giving back, what she took from it while living. It is no different. Death treats no animal, human or otherwise differently. It is an equal opportunity event, which comes to us all eventually, regardless of species, and how it occurs is no different either. We come into this world the same, struggle to survive, and die much the same. No one can keep us young and alive forever.

In loving memory of Amber Marie Brinson
Species: Feline
Born: August 1997
Adopted from the Humane Society four months later.
Died: 5:30 P.M. November 16, 2010
Survived by her human mother- Mriana, two human brothers, adopted feline brother- Suga’Ray, and an adopted feline daughter- Shiva.
May the memory of her live long in our hearts and minds.The only unfortunate part was that my younger son, who is nineteen, could not be involved with this due to his circumstances, but the next day, I told him that Amber died. My sons called Amber their sister. I knew it would be hard for him to hear the news. However, it is a fact of life that we must all face and the same ideals we apply or wish for ourselves sometimes have to apply to other family members, even if they are furry and four-legged, no matter how hard it may be. In the end, our pets die just as we do and go to the very same place as we do- back to the earth.

Even in death, Amber was treated as a family member and like a human, even though it was extremely emotionally painful for us. Her doctor felt we made a good decision and said she would not just arbitrarily make such a recommendation, because she knows our pets are family, which is common for pet caregivers, I hear.

The next night, I arrived an hour early, with my older son, to painfully let my furry four-legged daughter go, basically having a wake, fitting for a human, even though I did not want to let her go. We spent about an hour with her on a blanket we laid on the floor, loving her, hearing her purr, played some of her favourite music, even danced with her on my shoulder a little until she lay over in my arms tired, which did not take long given her condition.
She was so weak and her skin was yellow, but glad we were there that she spoke to us a little too. Aside from dancing with me one last time, she spent most of her time lying down. I told Amber, she cannot go home, but would feel better soon, as she looked at me as though to ask, “Why?” Before the doctor left us alone with Amber, she reassured me that I could not have prevented this, explaining that organ failure happens often with older cats.

The doctor came into the room again at 5:30 and asked if we were ready. No, I was not ready, but I knew it was better than continuing to allow her to be so sick until she died. The doctor had me pet Amber while telling her “she is a good girl” and that I love her, as she gave Amber an injection through a tube in her “wrist”. Amber's head just fell over as though she suddenly dropped of to sleep, like a child too sleepy to eat her dinner. The doctor grabbed Amber’s head to sit it down gently on the blanket that was still on the floor. Less then fifteen seconds afterward, the doctor called it saying, "She's gone." I started to cry and said, "It was so fast." The doctor replied, "Sometimes that good" and offered to let us stay for a while.

I had forgotten what happens the first few moments after death as I picked up her limp body, and then it suddenly dawn on me- my baby had a little accident, so to speak, but it was not the first time and probably would not be the last time such a thing happens. I did not care, until I put Amber down and my son hugged me. I tearfully told him, "I have pee on me." Ironically, it is somewhat funny now, but as a parent/sitter of human babies, puppies, kittens, and all, even the living have done that to me. Thus, I can say, both the living and the dead have peed on me. However, my son did not care. He just wanted hold me and let me cry some more, as he cried also.

Finally, I took the blanket the doctor provided us when they brought Amber to us to visit one last time, and wrapped her in it, as though she were sleeping, laid her on the examining table, and kissed her cheek, telling her I love her, one last time before leaving. I wanted to stay a little longer, but my son did not want to stay much past twenty minutes, partly out of fear. Death bothers him greatly, but still, I asked him, half jokingly, if he wanted to stay until she released her last air and he said, "No," but he knew I would have stayed until rigger set or longer, while petting and talking to Amber the whole time. I did not push him to stay longer though.

If I had my way, I would prefer to have Amber healthy, lying beside me, and purring me to sleep at night, but I still have Suga'Ray, my Hemi, who lies on his own pillow beside my head and also purrs me to sleep. I have my other furry daughter, Shiva, my half Siamese, still too. Therefore, the bedtime lullabies continue, albeit without my precious little girl, Amber. The trio is now a duet and while we Amber miss greatly, she will live on in our hearts, treated, as usual, no differently than any other love one. I said good-bye to her, while she was still alive, as painful as that was, even though I did not want to say good-bye. In time though, the tears and pain of losing her will pass and she will be a beautiful memory, right up and including her funeral celebration- the first in my life as being a celebration and not a religious dirge, as well as the first I will perform, before even receiving a license as a humanist celebrant. Thus, her memorial ceremony will be non-religious, and I think, given that, she was a member of the family and a cat; it will be excused and permissible to do so.

Would I make the same decision again? If there was no hope of recovery, but only suffering and pain until death, be the patient human or other species, yes, I would. I would not prolong one's life, just because I want them to live, especially if it meant they would only suffer until death. It seems the only logical thing to do when a doctor can do nothing more for a person. Even my sons know that if there was no hope of me recovering and living a quality life, then they are to do the same, especially if I am unable to speak for myself. It seems the most logical thing to do, and more preferable than quantity, especially when the quality of life is lost.

Hello everyone; my name is Mike. I am 32 years of age and I left the church when I was 23.

My journey away from the church started when I became curious of where my religion came from and what effect it had on the world. To make a long story short I found that my religion has been the cause of pain and suffering for many people. I discovered that my religion killed people because they were non-Christian and even killed other Christians for so-called heresy. I also discovered that my all-loving, merciful, compassionate creator condoned the murder of children in the bible. I began to think about how a loving, merciful god could ever create a hell for anybody to go to just because they did not believe in him or his son.

I reacted to all this with a sense of injustice and rage. I didn't really think about the so-called consequences of doing what I was doing. I felt betrayed and lied to by god himself. I just couldn't stand to think that my god murders little infants and creates a hell for unbelievers. As a Christian I didn't think about these things much even though I knew I must have read them in the bible at some point. I read the bible from cover to cover so I know I must have noticed these things, but for some reason they didn't register -- no alarm went off for some reason. I guess it must have been because I was so brainwashed by the church that I couldn't think to save my life.

I look back on my days as a Christian and wonder what the hell was I thinking?

Recently I began to think about death and dying and wondering if I would really go to hell. What if I was wrong and this terrible baby-killer did exist? What then? What if I were to die now and find myself in front of god and then thrown in hell for all eternity? What if for all of my reasoning ability I turn out to be utterly wrong despite evidence to the contrary. (I’m sure I’m right.) I thought about these things constantly and scared myself so bad that I became a Christian again for about two months. During that short time as a born again Christian I was not happy. I kept thinking about how god killed children, how god created hell for unbelievers and how god seems to hate people who are attracted to the same sex or both sexes. I asked myself if I could honestly believe in a god who is prejudiced and hateful and cruel and bigoted and just plain fucking psycho! I asked myself if I could be just like him. I mean after all god is supposed to be the model and guide for our life and we are supposed to strive to be like him because he's perfect and sweet and sensible and just the best thing ever right? Well the bible shows us a god who is anything but sweet, kind and sensible. The bible shows us a psychotic, neurotic, manipulative, tyrannical monster of the sickest imagination. People scream about Hitler and his genocide of the Jews but we hardly hear anything of god and his genocide of people.

It’s in our bibles, but for some reason some of us can't see them or we ignore it. I still believe in a cause for this universe that we see and behold, but I don't believe that that cause is the god of the bible or Yahweh as he is called. I don’t believe that the creator of this universe ever chose a race of people as his special race and I don’t believe that he had a son whom he had to torture to forgive us of our sins and I don't believe that this creator ever created a hell for anybody to go to.

I will never proclaim to know the will or thoughts of this creator but I know it is not the Hebrew, Jewish god whose name is Yahweh. I am myself am a bisexual so how could I believe in a god that hates me simply because of my sexual orientation? How could I believe in a god who punishes people for their lack of belief? How could I believe in a god who kills infants?

When I think about these things I am glad that I have the gift of reason to see me through.

"Each year, the Christmas season brings critics out of the woodwork to challenge us on our "war on Christmas," followed by attacks on our morality... The funny thing is that we have not really had a war on Christmas; we were just blamed for having one anyway. Ladies and gentlemen, if we are to be blamed for a war on Christmas, why not do something to deserve it?"

Atheists, like scientists, are portrayed by the religious and the media, as cold, analytical, logical . . . and dispassionate, despite the overjoyed reactions we share over new discoveries. How can believers ignore the shouts and hugging at NASA control when landers touch down on Mars, or astronauts land and walk on the moon, or when Voyager spacecraft and the Hubble telescope send their first pictures? What drives scientists to spend tedious hours, days, years, keeping precise measurements and records in the labs, or working with trowels and small brushes, dusting off ancient bones in intense desert heat, day after day? What passion takes them into active volcanoes, or into the depths of the Mariana Trench? The dedication and risks taken are sometimes astounding.

Consider, if the New Atheists did not make so much sense, they would not be attacked as nuts fixated on reason, cold logic, in defiance of warm, contented, " know-in-one's-heart" belief. Let's counter-argue that atheists are just as passionate as the most righteous believer. What believer, taking the stance that the resurrection is physically impossible, and therefor must be true, rejoicing in it as authentication of her own desire for immortal life, dares to have the passion to find evidence for this?

If you asked the believer to believe that that teapot orbiting the earth is really there, though un-seeable, you would rightly expect to be mocked. That would take faith, you know. But, "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe." For the believer believes that if it doesn't make sense to humans, it must be really important. The believer is passionate about this to the extent of saying that if his god said it, that's what it means, and if his god says something that contradicts what he formerly said, that isn't what he really meant. In fact, the passion is so intense and real that it's like that love which is called "blind;" immune to reason, with but a tenuous connection to reality.

Ask yourself what is more passionate and sensitive: to help alleviate needless human suffering and death, or to send money instead to the likes of Pat Robertson, or a wealthy Pope, or to purchase a vial of "holy" water from a TV pitchman? So, most atheists, I think, had that formal traditional dedication to the beliefs they were raised in. But, being sensitive and passionate, when they sensed something "wrong" in their beliefs, pursued their intuitions and gut feelings like scientists trying to crack the DNA code, or pursuing fossils, testing constantly for the facts. Whatever it took, they dared to go into forbidden places. Let's get down to those contradictions, find out the truth, and question why such beliefs are held and authorities are honored. Let’s see other sides: pore through history, ethics, moral writings, even mythology, and find the buried facts, even if it means losing esteem, the camaraderie of believers, and being rejected. Most atheists bring a passionate, obsessive dedication to the pursuit of truth, justice, and fairness that any ethical defense lawyer would admire.

Why wouldn’t they be angry at those who would put them down, reviling them for their behavior, demanding that they be as indifferent to evidence as themselves? Are atheists not in the same situation as Afro- Americans before THEY protested? Aren't we the "niggahs" to the Christian Righteous? Shouldn’t our passions deserve fair treatment, an equal voice, and respect? Yet, we are arrogantly attacked. As those African- Americans of the 1960s did, we too must speak out. Things will not get better if we allow this status quo. . . if we cease to insist that the emperor has no clothes, that we are morally good, based on the rational desire - passionately defended - for the betterment of all human lives.

Ask yourself what is more passionate and sensitive: to help alleviate needless human suffering and death, or to send money instead to the likes of Pat Robertson, or a wealthy Pope, or to purchase a vial of "holy" water from a TV pitchman? Is it compassionate to believe that all the people on earth were so bad, including infants, that they deserved to be drowned in The Flood? What kind of a person would WANT to accept humans as universally bad? That's a sickness of psychopaths. Atheists do not have that attitude; freedom from that belief and those like it in the heart of religions is what drives us. We cherish the freedom to think, to learn, to understand, and be members of this world and to give a damn about our humanity because there are no gods to care, no impending supernatural deliverances, and because there are so many more “Aha!” and "That's curious..." discoveries to be made.

Our passionate curiosity has made us much better human beings than we were before, as believers. We want to share our acquired knowledge, to free others, and have them participate. We're sick of the believers’ wet-blanketing of our enthusiasm, and their demands that we "stifle it". Are our intentions really "evil"? We might turn the question back at those who are degrading us. We are NOT "niggahs who deserve it." And if they can't handle the truth about us, it's their problem, as reality usually is for them.

It’s time to demand the respect we with OUR passions deserve. It's way, way, overdue.

Imam Muhammed Baquir is said to have related this illustrative fable: “Finding I could speak the language of ants, I approached one and inquired, ‘What is God like? Does He resemble the ant?’ He answered, ‘God! No, indeed—we have only a single sting, but God, he has two!” --author unknown

Do people think I am crabby? Or insecure? Or jealous? Do they think I am easily pleased? Happy? Contented? One way to tell would be to ask them. Another would be to watch how they interact with me. Christians spend a lot of time interacting with God, or at least attempting to. We may not be able to tell what is happening on God’s side of the conversation (that is highly contested), but we know a good deal about the human half. How humans attempt to approach, influence or simply relate to God tells us about how they perceive him.

The writers of the Bible provide pages and pages of advice on how to relate to God. Consequently, we have information about how they perceived him too. According to cognitive scientist, Pascal Boyer, most supernatural beings regardless of their physical form, have human psyches, including emotions. The God of the Bible is no exception. I have said that biblical ideas about God’s anger may come from how humans expect powerful people to behave toward those of lower status. In actual fact, sermons and sacred texts that wax eloquent about God’s anger are just one of many clues that most of the Bible writers related to God as a high status human. Most Christians since do too.

Another bit of evidence can be seen in biblical notions of what gives God pleasure. The counterpoint to the threat of God’s anger is that certain ways of relating to God please him, and so court favor. Making burnt offerings for example: He is to wash the inner parts and the legs with water, and the priest is to burn all of it on the altar. It is a burnt offering, an offering made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the LORD. (Leviticus 1:9.)

Besides gifts/offerings (burnt or otherwise), what kinds of attitudes and related behaviors please high status people? My daughters recently negotiated the middle school world of queen bees and wannabes. Queen bees want to be the center of attention. They like being admired and imitated. (After all “imitation is the highest form of flattery.”) They like exclusivity and often will reject girls who spend time with outsiders to their clique. They like calling the shots. They like bequeathing special favors and getting pathetic gratitude from the lowly in return. If we think about this list, it is remarkably, even painfully similar to what the God of Christians desires from his followers:

Attention (On thee will I meditate night and day);

Praise and admiration (For the Lord is great and greatly to be praised);

Exclusivity (Thou shalt have no other gods before me . . . For I am a jealous god);

Gratitude (. . . for this unspeakable gift . . .).

These components are central to how Christians relate to God. In searching to demonstrate this point, I went to my browser and typed in, “Prayers for children.” The first one that came up, a rhyming prayer to start off a child’s day, illustrates beautifully. Notice bowing (a gesture of subservience), gratitude, praise, compliance, and dependency:

Lord, in the morning I start each day,
By taking a moment to bow and pray.
I start with thanks, and then give praise
For all your kind and loving ways.

Today if sunshine turns to rain,
If a dark cloud brings some pain,
I won't doubt or hide in fear
For you, my God, are always near.

I will travel where you lead;
I will help my friends in need.Where you send me I will go;
With your help I'll learn and grow.

Hold my family in your hands,
As we follow your commands.
And I will keep you close in sight
Until I crawl in bed tonight.
-- Mary Fairchild

I would offer other examples, but the point I am making seems almost trivially true. What may not be so obvious is the hidden assumptions underneath this anthropomorphism. The “submission displays” described above are valued by powerful humans because our species developed under conditions of insufficiency—inadequate food supplies, not enough high quality mates for every man to have as many as he wants, limited fertile land, and so on.

Dominance hierarchies appear in virtually all social animals that need to compete for resources, and submissive displays on the part of underlings allow this hierarchy to be established and maintained without physical violence. For example, weaker chickens duck and move away from food or off the most comfortable perch if their superiors in the pecking order arrive. In chimpanzees, a subordinate may crouch, hold out a hand, or squeak. Humans show submission through both words and behaviors, and these signals are so pervasive that actors are trained to incorporate hierarchy signals into every conversation. This is because acting and improvisation tend to fall flat unless social hierarchy is established among the characters.

Dominance hierarchies appear in virtually all social animals that need to compete for resources, and submissive displays on the part of underlings allow this hierarchy to be established and maintained without physical violence.As social information specialists we depend on each other but we also compete with each other, and to minimize how much energy we spend competing, we establish hierarchies. Our desire to get as good a position as we can in the hierarchy makes us emotionally insecure. We are unsure of where we stand. Signals that other people will submit to us are reassuring. Pleasing.

Most people find it uncomfortable to be told that Islam means submission. The images of forced submission can be a little too graphic. And yet the reality is that dominance and submission are an integral part of human relations, and of religions with person-gods.

Even though humans are creative communicators, some of our religious behaviors may have specific biological roots. Consider for example the act of bowing one’s head in prayer. It probably is traceable to ancient postures that allowed commoners to approach royalty. The word grovel today means to show exaggerated deference or contrition in order to appease someone. But its medieval root appears related to the word prone and may have to do with the physical posture required to approach the king. A parallel word, “kowtow,” means to behave with extreme submissiveness to please an authority figure. But it derives from the traditional Chinese practice of bowing so low that your head touches the ground. But these behaviors in turn may derive from something far more ancient. In other primates, a bow communicates submission to an animal of higher status. It can be a means of avoiding a fight when tensions are high.

In this world, if we understand our place, if we engage in submissive behaviors, then high status people let us hang around, and we ourselves gain status from the proximity. I recently was invited to an investment club meeting at the home of a powerful woman. Because I was working on this article, I couldn’t help but notice the actions of the guests (who were mostly less wealthy and less social). They expressed gratitude for the (exclusive) invitation. Praise for the catering was effusive; and for the garden. The words of the hostess got extra nodding. We all felt lucky to be a part of her circle.

Christians gain status, at least in each others’ eyes and in their own minds, because of proximity to God. I am not suggesting that Christians are particularly arrogant, because I don’t believe that to be true. I think, simply that all of us are wired to orient ourselves according to hierarchical assumptions—they are inescapable—and to seek advantage within the hierarchy. I think also that these hierarchical relationships are mediated by emotions, and that we instinctively expect them in any being with a humanoid psyche. Since the Christian Bible describes a person-god who relates to humans, it is inevitable that believers respond to these contingencies.

If the world were different, biblical Christianity might center on release from desire or ethical study or acts of compassion as in some forms of Buddhism. It might focus on ahimsa or nonviolence like Jainism. But that, I think, would take a different Bible. Like the God of Islam, the God of the Bible is interested primarily in worship. That is what the sacred texts tell us, and believers respond. As a consequence, intellectual assent, accompanied by submission behaviors and displays of devotion are core to both religions. The way that believers interact with God, both in the Bible and in modern life tells us who they think they are talking to. Unfortunately our god concepts fall victim to what we know about big cheese humans. This means that God not only has emotions, but a lot of them aren’t very nice.

Help Keep Ex-C Online

You really don't think maintaining a site like this costs nothing, do you? Give a hand! Click the "Donate" button above to give one-time or recurring monthly donations. Or, choose one of the recurring donation options below and click the "Subscribe" button.